Mae Jemison on teaching arts and sciences together
- Articles, Blog

Mae Jemison on teaching arts and sciences together

What I want to do today is spend
some time talking about some stuff that’s giving me a little bit
of existential angst, for lack of a better word, over the past couple of years. And basically, these three quotes
tell what’s going on. “When God made the color purple,
God was just showing off,” Alice Walker wrote in “The Color Purple.” And Zora Neale Hurston wrote
in “Dust Tracks On A Road,” “Research is a formalized curiosity. It’s poking and prying with a purpose.” And then finally,
when I think about the near future, we have this attitude, “Well,
whatever happens, happens.” Right? So that goes along with
the Cheshire Cat saying, “If you don’t care much
where you want to get to, it doesn’t much matter which way you go.” But I think it does matter which way
we go and what road we take, because when I think
about design in the near future, what I think are the most
important issues, what’s really crucial and vital, is that we need to revitalize
the arts and sciences right now, in 2002. (Applause) If we describe the near future
as 10, 20, 15 years from now, that means that what we do today
is going to be critically important, because in the year 2015,
in the year 2020, 2025, the world our society
is going to be building on, the basic knowledge and abstract ideas, the discoveries
that we came up with today, just as all these wonderful things
we’re hearing about here at the TED conference that we take for granted
in the world right now, were really knowledge
and ideas that came up in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s. That’s the substrate
that we’re exploiting today. Whether it’s the internet, genetic engineering, laser scanners, guided missiles, fiber optics,
high-definition television, remote sensing from space
and the wonderful remote-sensing photos that we see in 3D weaving, TV programs
like Tracker and Enterprise, CD-rewrite drives, flat-screen,
Alvin Ailey’s “Suite Otis,” or Sarah Jones’s “Your Revolution Will
Not [Happen] Between These Thighs,” which, by the way, was banned by the FCC, or ska — all of these things, without question,
almost without exception, are really based on ideas
and abstract and creativity from years before. So we have to ask ourselves: What are we contributing
to that legacy right now? And when I think about it, I’m really worried. To be quite frank, I’m concerned. I’m skeptical that we’re doing
very much of anything. We’re, in a sense, failing to act in the future. We’re purposefully,
consciously being laggards. We’re lagging behind. Frantz Fanon, who was a psychiatrist
from Martinique, said, “Each generation must,
out of relative obscurity, discover its mission and fulfill or betray it.” What is our mission?
What do we have to do? I think our mission is
to reconcile, to reintegrate science and the arts, because right now, there’s a schism
that exists in popular culture. People have this idea that science
and the arts are really separate; we think of them as separate
and different things. And this idea was probably
introduced centuries ago, but it’s really becoming critical now, because we’re making decisions
about our society every day that, if we keep thinking that the arts
are separate from the sciences, and we keep thinking it’s cute to say, “I don’t understand
anything about this one, I don’t understand anything
about the other one,” then we’re going to have problems. Now, I know no one
here at TED thinks this. All of us, we already know
that they’re very connected. But I’m going to let you know
that some folks in the outside world, believe it or not,
think it’s neat when they say, “Scientists and science is not creative. Maybe scientists are ingenious,
but they’re not creative.” And then we have this tendency, the career counselors
and various people say things like, “Artists are not analytical. They’re ingenious, perhaps, but not analytical.” And when these concepts
underlie our teaching and what we think about the world, then we have a problem, because we stymie support for everything. By accepting this dichotomy, whether it’s tongue-in-cheek, when we attempt
to accommodate it in our world, and we try to build
our foundation for the world, we’re messing up the future, because: Who wants to be uncreative? Who wants to be illogical? Talent would run
from either of these fields if you said you had to choose either. Then they’ll go to something
where they think, “Well, I can be creative
and logical at the same time.” Now, I grew up in the ’60s
and I’ll admit it — actually, my childhood spanned the ’60s, and I was a wannabe hippie, and I always resented the fact
that I wasn’t old enough to be a hippie. And I know there are people here,
the younger generation, who want to be hippies. People talk about the ’60s all the time. And they talk about the anarchy
that was there. But when I think about the ’60s, what I took away from it was
that there was hope for the future. We thought everyone could participate. There were wonderful, incredible ideas
that were always percolating, and so much of what’s cool or hot today is really based on some of those concepts, whether it’s people trying to use
the Prime Directive from Star Trek, being involved in things, or, again, that three-dimensional
weaving and fax machines that I read about in my weekly readers that the technology and engineering
was just getting started. But the ’60s left me with a problem. You see, I always assumed
I would go into space, because I followed all of this. But I also loved the arts and sciences. You see, when I was growing up
as a little girl and as a teenager, I loved designing and making doll clothes and wanting to be a fashion designer. I took art and ceramics. I loved dance: Lola Falana,
Alvin Ailey, Jerome Robbins. And I also avidly followed
the Gemini and the Apollo programs. I had science projects
and tons of astronomy books. I took calculus and philosophy. I wondered about infinity
and the Big Bang theory. And when I was at Stanford,
I found myself, my senior year, chemical engineering major, half the folks thought I was a political
science and performing arts major, which was sort of true, because I was
Black Student Union President, and I did major in some other things. And I found myself the last quarter juggling chemical engineering
separation processes, logic classes, nuclear magnetic
resonance spectroscopy, and also producing and choreographing
a dance production. And I had to do the lighting
and the design work, and I was trying to figure out: Do I go to New York City
to try to become a professional dancer, or to go to medical school? Now, my mother helped
me figure that one out. (Laughter) But when I went into space,
I carried a number of things up with me. I carried a poster by Alvin Ailey — you can figure out now,
I love the dance company — an Alvin Ailey poster of Judith Jamison
performing the dance “Cry,” dedicated to all black women everywhere; a Bundu statue, which was from
the women’s society in Sierra Leone; and a certificate for the Chicago
Public School students to work to improve their science and math. And folks asked me, “Why did you take up what you took up?” And I had to say, “Because it represents human creativity; the creativity that allowed us, that we were required to have
to conceive and build and launch the space shuttle, which springs from the same source
as the imagination and analysis that it took to carve a Bundu statue, or the ingenuity it took to design,
choreograph and stage “Cry.” Each one of them are different
manifestations, incarnations, of creativity —
avatars of human creativity. And that’s what we have to
reconcile in our minds, how these things fit together. The difference between arts and sciences
is not analytical versus intuitive. Right? E=mc2 required an intuitive leap, and then you had to do
the analysis afterwards. Einstein said, in fact, “The most beautiful thing
we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source
of all true art and science.” Dance requires us to express
and want to express the jubilation in life, but then you have to figure out: Exactly what movement do I do to make sure it comes across correctly? The difference between arts and sciences is also not constructive
versus deconstructive. A lot of people think of the sciences
as deconstructive, you have to pull things apart. And yeah, subatomic physics
is deconstructive — you literally try to tear atoms apart to understand what’s inside of them. But sculpture, from what I understand
from great sculptors, is deconstructive, because you see a piece and you remove
what doesn’t need to be there. Biotechnology is constructive. Orchestral arranging is constructive. So, in fact, we use constructive
and deconstructive techniques in everything. The difference
between science and the arts is not that they are different sides
of the same coin, even, or even different parts
of the same continuum, but rather, they’re manifestations
of the same thing. Different quantum states of an atom? Or maybe if I want to be
more 21st century, I could say that they’re different
harmonic resonances of a superstring. But we’ll leave that alone. They spring from the same source. The arts and sciences are avatars
of human creativity. It’s our attempt as humans to build an understanding
of the universe, the world around us. It’s our attempt to influence things, the universe internal to ourselves and external to us. The sciences, to me, are manifestations
of our attempt to express or share our understanding, our experience, to influence the universe
external to ourselves. It doesn’t rely on us as individuals. It’s the universe,
as experienced by everyone. The arts manifest our desire, our attempt to share or influence others through experiences
that are peculiar to us as individuals. Let me say it again another way: science provides an understanding
of a universal experience, and arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience. That’s what we have to think about, that they’re all part of us,
they’re all part of a continuum. It’s not just the tools,
it’s not just the sciences, the mathematics and the numerical stuff
and the statistics, because we heard, very much on this stage, people talked about music
being mathematical. Arts don’t just use clay, aren’t the only ones that use clay,
light and sound and movement. They use analysis as well. So people might say, “Well, I still like that intuitive
versus analytical thing,” because everybody wants to do
the right brain, left brain thing. We’ve all been accused of being
right-brained or left-brained at some point in time, depending on who we disagreed with. (Laughter) You know, people say “intuitive” — that’s like you’re in touch with nature, in touch with yourself and relationships; analytical, you put your mind to work. I’m going to tell you a little secret.
You all know this, though. But sometimes people use
this analysis idea, that things are outside of ourselves, to say, this is what
we’re going to elevate as the true, most important
sciences, right? Then you have artists — and you all know
this is true as well — artists will say things about scientists because they say they’re too concrete,
they’re disconnected from the world. But, we’ve even had that here on stage, so don’t act like you don’t know
what I’m talking about. (Laughter) We had folks talking
about the Flat Earth Society and flower arrangers, so there’s this whole dichotomy that we continue to carry along,
even when we know better. And folks say we need to choose either-or. But it would really be foolish
to choose either one, intuitive versus analytical. That’s a foolish choice. It’s foolish just like trying to choose
between being realistic or idealistic. You need both in life. Why do people do this? I’m going to quote
a molecular biologist, Sydney Brenner, who’s 70 years old, so he can say this. He said, “It’s always important
to distinguish between chastity and impotence.” Now — (Laughter) I want to share with you
a little equation, OK? How does understanding science
and the arts fit into our lives and what’s going on and the things we’re talking about
here at the design conference? And this is a little thing I came up with: understanding and our resources and our will cause us to have outcomes. Our understanding is our science,
our arts, our religion; how we see the universe around us; our resources, our money,
our labor, our minerals — those things that are out there
in the world we have to work with. But more importantly, there’s our will. This is our vision, our aspirations of the future,
our hopes, our dreams, our struggles and our fears. Our successes and our failures influence
what we do with all of those. And to me, design and engineering,
craftsmanship and skilled labor, are all the things that work
on this to have our outcome, which is our human quality of life. Where do we want the world to be? And guess what? Regardless of how we look at this, whether we look at arts and sciences
as separate or different, they’re both being influenced now
and they’re both having problems. I did a project called the Future: Science, Engineering and Education. It was looking at how to shed light on the most effective use
of government funding. We got a bunch of scientists
in all stages of their careers. They came to Dartmouth College,
where I was teaching. And they talked about,
with theologians and financiers: What are some of the issues
of public funding for science and engineering research? What’s most important about it? There are some ideas that emerged that I think have really
powerful parallels to the arts. The first thing they said
was that the circumstances that we find ourselves in today
in the sciences and engineering that made us world leaders are very different than the ’40s,
the ’50s, and the ’60s and the ’70s, when we emerged as world leaders, because we’re no longer
in competition with fascism, with Soviet-style communism. And by the way, that competition
wasn’t just military; it included social competition
and political competition as well, that allowed us to look at space
as one of those platforms to prove that our social
system was better. Another thing they talked
about was that the infrastructure that supports the sciences is becoming obsolete. We look at universities and colleges — small, mid-sized community colleges
across the country — their laboratories are becoming obsolete. And this is where we train
most of our science workers and our researchers —
and our teachers, by the way. And there’s a media that doesn’t support
the dissemination of any more than the most mundane and inane of information. There’s pseudoscience, crop circles,
alien autopsy, haunted houses, or disasters. And that’s what we see. This isn’t really the information you need
to operate in everyday life and figure out how to participate
in this democracy and determine what’s going on. They also said there’s a change
in the corporate mentality. Whereas government money
had always been there for basic science
and engineering research, we also counted on some companies
to do some basic research. But what’s happened now
is companies put more energy into short-term product development than they do in basic engineering
and science research. And education is not keeping up. In K through 12, people
are taking out wet labs. They think if we put
a computer in the room, it’s going to take the place
of actually mixing the acids or growing the potatoes. And government funding
is decreasing in spending, and then they’re saying,
let’s have corporations take over, and that’s not true. Government funding
should at least do things like recognize cost benefits
of basic science and engineering research. We have to know that we have
a responsibility as global citizens in this world. We have to look at
the education of humans. We need to build our resources today
to make sure that they’re trained so they understand
the importance of these things. And we have to support
the vitality of science. That doesn’t mean that everything has
to have one thing that’s going to go on, or that we know exactly what’s going
to be the outcome of it, but that we support the vitality
and the intellectual curiosity that goes along [with it]. And if you think about
those parallels to the arts — the competition
with the Bolshoi Ballet spurred the Joffrey and the New York
City Ballet to become better. Infrastructure, museums, theaters,
movie houses across the country are disappearing. We have more television stations
with less to watch, we have more money spent on rewrites to get old television programs in the movies. We have corporate funding now that, when it goes to support the arts, it almost requires that the product
be part of the picture that the artist draws. We have stadiums that are named
over and over again by corporations. In Houston, we’re trying to figure out
what to do with that Enron Stadium thing. (Laughter) Fine arts and education
in the schools is disappearing, And we have a government
that seems like it’s gutting the NEA and other programs. So we have to really stop and think: What are we trying to do
with the sciences and the arts? There’s a need to revitalize them. We have to pay attention to it. I just want to tell you quickly
what I’m doing — (Applause) I want to tell you what I’ve been doing
a little bit since … I feel this need to sort of
integrate some of the ideas that I’ve had and run across over time. One of the things that I found out
is that there’s a need to repair the dichotomy between the mind
and body as well. My mother always told me,
you have to be observant, know what’s going on
in your mind and your body. And as a dancer, I had this tremendous
faith in my ability to know my body, just as I knew how to sense colors. Then I went to medical school, and I was supposed to just go on
what the machine said about bodies. You know, you would ask patients questions
and some people would tell you, “Don’t listen to what the patient said.” We know that patients know
and understand their bodies better, but these days we’re trying
to divorce them from that idea. We have to reconcile
the patient’s knowledge of their body with physicians’ measurements. We had someone talk about
measuring emotions and getting machines to figure out
what to keep us from acting crazy. No, we shouldn’t measure. We shouldn’t use machines
to measure road rage and then do something to keep
us from engaging in it. Maybe we can have machines help us
to recognize that we have road rage, and then we need to know
how to control that without the machines. We even need to be able to recognize that
without the machines. What I’m very concerned about is: How do we bolster our self-awareness
as humans, as biological organisms? Michael Moschen spoke of having to teach and learn how to feel with my eyes,
to see with my hands. We have all kinds of possibilities
to use our senses by, and that’s what we have to do. That’s what I want to do — to try to use bioinstrumentation,
those kind of things, to help our senses in what we do. That’s the work I’ve been doing now, as a company called
BioSentient Corporation. I figured I’d have to do that ad,
because I’m an entrepreneur, and “entrepreneur” says “somebody
who does what they want to do, because they’re not broke enough
that they have to get a real job.” (Laughter) But that’s the work I’m doing,
BioSentient Corporation, trying to figure out:
How do we integrate these things? Let me finish by saying that
my personal design issue for the future is really about integrating; to think about that intuitive
and that analytical. The arts and sciences are not separate. High school physics
lesson before you leave: high school physics teacher
used to hold up a ball. She would say, “This ball
has potential energy. But nothing will happen to it,
it can’t do any work, until I drop it and it changes states.” I like to think of ideas
as potential energy. They’re really wonderful, but nothing will happen
until we risk putting them into action. This conference is filled
with wonderful ideas. We’re going to share
lots of things with people. But nothing’s going to happen until we risk putting
those ideas into action. We need to revitalize
the arts and sciences today. We need to take responsibility
for the future. We can’t hide behind saying
it’s just for company profits, or it’s just a business, or I’m an artist or an academician. Here’s how you judge what you’re doing: I talked about that balance
between intuitive, analytical. Fran Lebowitz, my favorite cynic, said, “The three questions
of greatest concern …” — now I’m going to add on to design — “… are: Is it attractive?” That’s the intuitive. “Is it amusing?” — the analytical, and, “Does it know
its place?” — the balance. Thank you very much. (Applause)

About James Carlton

Read All Posts By James Carlton

81 thoughts on “Mae Jemison on teaching arts and sciences together

  1. Why do our schools too often fail to honor both the right and the left brain? Art is important. Design goes hand in hand with engineering.

  2. to be honest, if we have CANNABIS legalized, we're going to have another 'Renaissance'. Also CREATIONISM is delaying our progress.

  3. Ha, ha, what? Who says there aren't empirical facts in art. I would say there is fact and truth in most art. Ever heard of William Carlos Williams-Science and poetry.

  4. That is why we dont have flying cars around as people in the 60's and 70's thought we'll have on 2000's

  5. she should have quoted Bob Marley since she was a lol wannabe hippie
    Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    none but ourselves can free our mind.
    How long shall they kill our prophets
    while we aside and look.

  6. She might be trying to ride the curve ahead. When we look at the allosphere we see some artistic minds involved. The greatest leaps happen when people of different fields come together. I largely agree with you, but sometimes you can convey more with images (art) than you can with words.

    I love this, "If science/ tech provide the bus for humanity's ride (now accelerating!) then Art is the glass windshield, headlights, map and the DESIRED DESTINATION!",
    beautifully put.

  7. another case of academia ignoring the massive problems in society at large. it's almost an insulation problem. scholars are largely insular. very few question the problems of the social order. the ones that do are demonized or ignored for the most part.

    'our goal is to integrate science and the arts.'

    really? what about ending starvation? one sixth of the human race is starving to death right now. it would be an easy fix if people spoke up about it, because most people don't want others to die

  8. wrong. check out reputable, independent sources such as human rights watch.

    where did you get the figure of 2%? and isn't 2 out of every hundred people still absolutely disgusting? just because the majority of them are the "unpeople" as some call them [still]. you've probably never faced any kind of desperate hunger or starvation, i hope you haven't and never do, but those people do require at the very least minimal assistance. it would cost far less than a month's military budget in the US.

  9. We have many vital issues that need addressing, however until we've changed the people, the people aren't going to change the way they live their lives. The issues of overpopulation, global warming, starvation, health, factory farming and religion, these issues are symptoms of a greater problem, our general ignorance, our lack of empathy and our rampant materialism. These problems can only be changed through education.

  10. i agree to an extent. the vast majority of the world really does care about those problems. it's the top 20 [the political class, mainly in the US, but elsewhere as well] that are so heavily indoctrinated. the rest of us are easily distracted, sure. propaganda works. but if we put a tiny bit of focus on those things, people feel like they're crazy thinking about it. if there is public discussion of these issues, things would very quickly change and we may even get a functioning democracy from it

  11. excuse me, '…people *won't* feel like they're crazy thinking about it.'

    cutting the trillion dollar military budget would be a huge step in the right direction.

  12. I'm contributing all of the vertex combinations or regular tessellations for the future. What more do you want?

  13. I have my doubts as to whether my public discussion is enough, however I agree that it's important to stay vocal on these issues if there is to be any hope of change. The majority of people can't grasp the plight of those starving at an emotional level and until they do they will continue to ignore it. I think we have to tackle the issues from all directions and that includes increasing the level of education for the general populace.

  14. Well i have some ideas. one is that cars floats a bit from ground. and also that energy is gained from a substance similar to plasma but in purple color.
    also that people develop skills they are good at and they like, so they can become like the very best of themselves.

  15. we're on the same page. i was originally addressing mae's phrase, 'our goal is to integrate science and the arts.' that's not a goal, although it is something useful. like i said, academia is largely quite insular. they're in a minority, it makes sense in a way. they seek goals in their fields, and that's important. perhaps i should have said i wish those in academia had a better notion of solidarity. 'an injury to one is an injury to all.' 500 characters is far too few for worthwhile topics

  16. Totally, I find myself abbreviating my thoughts and then, after posting, seeing just how easy it could be to misconstrue my thoughts on a subject. Still, as you say, I reckon we're singing from the same song book and I agree, 'goal' does sound like it's the end of a journey rather than a good direction to travel. Her ideas are the means to an end, part of the means anyway.

    Nice chatting 🙂

  17. I agree on this about you. it`s that we have to solve the problem at root level. not to fight with it`s aftereffects/results.
    It`s the same as, example, more people would understand that to steal is unnecessary, it would solve the problem at root. while how it is now, people are just fighting with results of stealing, by applying more restrictions or so. well maybe not that good example, but i hope you understand. And sorry if someone doesnt understand me, english is my second language.

  18. Science = Objective analysis of the natural world
    Arts = Subjective expression of emotions/experience etc.

    Science and arts are separate areas, they cannot be forcefully mixed.

  19. I'll even simplify it further to highlight my point:
    Science: Objective
    Art: Subjective
    => Objective+Subjective=Subjective
    Science cannot under any circumstances have any subjective elements because then it looses its objective nature.
    I don't discredit art in general (even though i think most art is a load of nonsense), both areas have their positive effects but they cannot fuse.
    This does not mean technology and art cannot cooperate though.

  20. Same reply for you cause i'm lazy:
    I'll even simplify it further to highlight my point:
    Science: Objective
    Art: Subjective
    => Objective+Subjective=Subjective
    Science cannot under any circumstances have any subjective elements because then it looses its objective nature.
    I don't discredit art in general (even though i think most art is a load of nonsense), both areas have their positive effects but they cannot fuse.
    This does not mean technology and art cannot cooperate though.

  21. This is not really true. Both art and science have elements of objectivity and subjectivity integrated within each.

    Too often people think that art is whatever the artist calls art. This is fundementally wrong. Art is a mode of communication. The content of the artists attempted message is usually subjective. As it is a mode of communication, the method and medium of the communication itself is OBJECTIVE. The translation and valuation of the substance of the message is subjective…

  22. Likewise, science starts with the pursuit of a solution to a problem. Determining the value of the solution and seeking the best route to that solution is subjective. The methods to seek the facts to define the problem and possible solution is objective, but finally the value of that solution is, yet again, subjective.

  23. Wrong, science does not start with the pursuit to find a solution for a problem, science tries to explain the natural world by building theoretical models and gathering evidence from which conclusions can be drawn, science is by all means objective. There is not a spark of subjectivity in any scientific theory.
    Also it's no use whatsoever that the medium of arts is objective, as soon as there is any room for subjectivity it does not have a place in science.

  24. I'm sorry. I'm afraid you are simply wrong. On both counts. I cannot fully explain just how fundementally wrong you are. Of course, I'm not going to both because you are clearly one of those types that have made up your mind about things and will not listen to reason. Good day.

  25. That is exactly the point where people get me wrong, i do by no means talk about technology, people who develop technology are not necessarily scientists, "science" is a very limited field and as i said arts do not have a place in it.

  26. Totally right. Separation of the two halves of our identity doesn't solve anything. If we're not using both together, we're being misled…I guess that's humanism. Separating the two leads to relying on one side, so that "spiritual" people don't use reason, and practical, logical people tend to be apathetic. Combining the two motivates to move forward and do it with sharper wits.

  27. She seems like an interesting person that has a rare in depth perspective on both arts and sciences. I like the way she proposes that they're both important and both have their place.

  28. A lot of generalizations that go nowhere and offer nothing. I understand wanting to accept the offer to speak, but to have no solutions to offer and to mispronounce words throughout your speech is embarrassing.

  29. Many great points.

    Though I find it peculiar that she makes the point that an idea wont matter unless we put it into action. Seeing as this is one of the most general and "other people should" kind of presentation I have seen on TED.

    Most people on TED are people who HAVE to taken acion on their ideas. I would like to hear what Mae Jemison is willing to do to work towards her idea.

  30. What's the big deal with science? When was the last time you worried about dying from an infected cut? Have you spent your entire life staving off starvation? Any idea how the infant mortality rate has changed since science tackled the issue? How many mothers die during childbirth as compared to even a century ago?

  31. She's cool, I like this way of thinking. However, many of the really clever scientists and engineers have been/are creative people.

  32. Dude, to understand the world you need science. If you want to live in ignorance, do so. It's easy. Far easier than trying to understand what's actually happening and trying to influence it.

    There are admittedly other things on life though.

  33. Wait let me get this straight. You're using a computer to post your comment on a world-wide network and you're asking what's the big deal with science? Just watch "Louise Fresco on feeding the whole world" for an example on what's the big deal with science. You know that Audio Preview button? They put that there for you.

  34. I am able to connect all the information- it is fluid. Science and Art are the same. From wonder we are able to discover and create a new…movement, piece, environment, life.
    Melissa Ayr, Artist

  35. She says: "Science provides an understanding of a universal experience and the Arts provide a universal understanding of a personal experience" …. think about it, the arts and sciences belong together.

  36. It takes creativity to be open and inspired to wonder and isn't that what scientist do? Love this and thank you..

  37. I love how Dr. Jemisen gets it. Art and science are the foundation to building a functional society to progress. Art is one of the first disaplines cut in the schools. Abstract, creativity, science, art, is problem solving – new solutions. The deepest wrinkels made in the brain. Think big. Make mistakes. Wonder. Explore.
    Melissa Ayr

  38. Ummmm. Seems like you should perhaps, pick up a book and read about her accomplishments in your spare time, then may be you can find something more positive and enlightening to say the next time you log on. Or may be the reading you'll do in your spare time , can begin to help you can find a cure for cancer.

  39. ????

    Perspective. Animation. Stylization of human beings. Anatomy. Dynamic poses. Foreshortening. New art styles (Cubism, MC Escher, Dali…)

    Today's art is not superior to that of the egyptians or romans?

  40. | do not consider Cubism awesome. But…

    I repeat: Dynamic poses. Perspective. Foreshortening. The Egyptians did not have the knowledge of how to do so in the past.

    This is not subjective. Go look at Egyptian art. All of their human figures face one direction or another. Do you believe that their art might be improved with additional drawing knowledge?

    Also, you seem to know the tastes of an ancient Egyptian. Are you by any chance…an ancient Egyptian? Or do you channel spirits?

  41. Love!

    Here we have a REAL role model.

    I'm in love!

    *crossing my fingers* Please don't be religious, PLEASE!!

  42. "There are two kinds of truth; the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art…. Without art science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery."

  43. "We have to revitalize the arts and sciences"…I hate it when people say that without a goal and without the means with which to do it. What a waste of time. Everyone knows that they are good things…what we need is a for people to figure out how to do it. Sponsoring risk-taking is great…but who's going to take a risk because some speaker asks them to take a risk?

  44. This is a great site to make frequency modulation projects from
    use the model and it will get the kids interested like video games
    energy equals life dot com
    no matter where you are lesson wise you should be able to pull this in

  45. Lol wow she said 'know the concept difference between impotence and chastity'. All joke aside art and science both mutually attempt to understand/imitate life.

  46. The lecture was outstanding. I am so glad I had the opportunity to watch it. I have to share this.

  47. What you say should be engraved on bronze plates and installed in front of every school. People often consider the arts and sciences electives, they do not consider that the curriculum itself IS both art and science, a text book is a work of art and a work of science. At ANY age learning is GREATLY enhanced by singing, dancing, rhyming, acting, gaming and discussing, why are these all banned in the classroom? SCIENCE is the art of OBJECTIVE expression, ART is the science of SUBJECTIVE expression

  48. This woman is using this opportunity to self promote. She is merely highlighting great decisions she has made in her life and how everyone should do the same. It's a shame to preach the need to have an understanding without having a true individual understanding of those you are preaching too. I call that hypocrisy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *